2003

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.0634  Wednesday, 2 April 2003

[1]     From:   Claude Caspar <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 1 Apr 2003 09:51:56 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0629 Re: King John Date

[2]     From:   Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
        Date:   Tuesday, 1 Apr 2003 18:10:17 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.0629 Re: King John Date


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Claude Caspar <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 1 Apr 2003 09:51:56 -0500
Subject: 14.0629 Re: King John Date
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0629 Re: King John Date

>There is a smack of bardolatry on Ros King's argument that 'it is
>inconceivable that the author of Troublesome Reign (published 1591)
>could have invented the character of the Bastard unaided by previous
>example.

It is very much appreciated that such an esteemed scholar such as
Vickers takes the time to read, let alone contribute, to this list.
But, as irrational as Bardolatry may be, so is its converse.

Here is Bloom, speaking of Bardolatry:

"It is not too much to say that the Bastard in King John inaugurates
Shakespeare's invention of the human, which is the subject of this
book.  What made Faulconbridge's startling reality (or, if you prefer,
the illusion of such reality) possible?  The others characters in King
John, including John himself, still have upon them the stigmata of
Marlowe's high, vaunting rhetoric.  With Faulconbridge the Bastard,
Shakespeare's own world begins, and that originality, difficult as it is
now to isolate, has become our norm for representation of fictive
personages." (52)

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Bob Grumman <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Tuesday, 1 Apr 2003 18:10:17 -0500
Subject: 14.0629 Re: King John Date
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.0629 Re: King John Date

>As MacDonald
>Jackson recently show, an overwhelming number of vocabulary links, and
>other intertextual evidence, places KJ very close to Richard 2 in the
>mid-1590s.  It's not 'early Shakespeare' on any linguistic or
>dramaturgical analysis.
>
>Brian Vickers

That's not quite true.  My (amateur) dramaturgical analysis places this
crappo play right after the Henry VI trilogy.

--Bob G.

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Search

Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.